Disclaimer: I’m in the “Love Holacracy” camp :)
I’ve been observing heated debates fighting for and against Holacracy. I’ve also seen heated debates on both sides about Agile, Scrum in particular.
In both of these cases, there are those that really loved it and there are equal numbers of haters.
Reading the arguments, I often feel that what one camp think is a strength, the other camp sees it as a weakness. They can’t both be universally right.
I wonder if this has to do with personality types?
Some people put more emphasis on feeling, relationship, closeness, working happy, This camp really dislikes anything that feels machine like, precision.
Others put emphasis on clarity, exactness, precision, accountability, execution, effectiveness, and dislike anything that feels touchy feely, seems irrational, unstructured, random.
When you give one approach, any approach, to these two camps, you can’t help but have heated debates and polarized opinions.
Now the problem is that in every organization we always have both types, and it seems like nothing we do will appeal to both sidea simultaneously, thus some people will hate it, and leave (and write articles about how bad it was), some will hate it but stay, some will love it completely (and write articles hyping the approach even more)
Going back to Holacracy (and Scrum) it seems like it was made by and appeal to those that value structure, precision, execution, effectiveness, speed. People who value relationship and feelings will hate it to the core.
Does this mean that Holacracy is bad and doomed to failure ? If this were true, then it would be true for any other change that we introduce because we simply can’t cater to both sides at the same time. Any approach would lean a little bit more to one side, causing polarization.
I guess my point is while these debates are interesting, no one side will ever “win”.